A Theoretical Analysis of NDCG Type Ranking Measures

A central problem in ranking is to design a ranking measure for evaluation of ranking functions. In this paper we study, from a theoretical perspective, the widely used Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG)-type ranking measures. Although there are extensive empirical studies of NDCG, little is known about its theoretical properties. We first show that, whatever the ranking function is, the standard NDCG which adopts a logarithmic discount, converges to 1 as the number of items to rank goes to infinity. On the first sight, this result is very surprising. It seems to imply that NDCG cannot differentiate good and bad ranking functions, contradicting to the empirical success of NDCG in many applications. In order to have a deeper understanding of ranking measures in general, we propose a notion referred to as consistent distinguishability. This notion captures the intuition that a ranking measure should have such a property: For every pair of substantially different ranking functions, the ranking measure can decide which one is better in a consistent manner on almost all datasets. We show that NDCG with logarithmic discount has consistent distinguishability although it converges to the same limit for all ranking functions. We next characterize the set of all feasible discount functions for NDCG according to the concept of consistent distinguishability. Specifically we show that whether NDCG has consistent distinguishability depends on how fast the discount decays, and 1/r is a critical point. We then turn to the cut-off version of NDCG, i.e., NDCG@k. We analyze the distinguishability of NDCG@k for various choices of k and the discount functions. Experimental results on real Web search datasets agree well with the theory.Comment: COLT 201

On the Additivity and Weak Baselines for Search Result Diversification Research

A recent study on the topic of additivity addresses the task of search result diversification and concludes that while weaker baselines are almost always significantly improved by the evaluated diversification methods, for stronger baselines, just the opposite happens, i.e., no significant improvement can be observed. Due to the importance of the issue in shaping future research directions and evaluation strategies in search results diversification, in this work, we first aim to reproduce the findings reported in the previous study, and then investigate its possible limitations. Our extensive experiments first reveal that under the same experimental setting with that previous study, we can reach similar results. Next, we hypothesize that for stronger baselines, tuning the parameters of some methods (i.e., the trade-off parameter between the relevance and diversity of the results in this particular scenario) should be done in a more fine-grained manner. With trade-off parameters that are specifically determined for each baseline run, we show that the percentage of significant improvements even over the strong baselines can be doubled. As a further issue, we discuss the possible impact of using the same strong baseline retrieval function for the diversity computations of the methods. Our takeaway message is that in the case of a strong baseline, it is more crucial to tune the parameters of the diversification methods to be evaluated; but once this is done, additivity is achievable

Hashing as Tie-Aware Learning to Rank

Hashing, or learning binary embeddings of data, is frequently used in nearest neighbor retrieval. In this paper, we develop learning to rank formulations for hashing, aimed at directly optimizing ranking-based evaluation metrics such as Average Precision (AP) and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG). We first observe that the integer-valued Hamming distance often leads to tied rankings, and propose to use tie-aware versions of AP and NDCG to evaluate hashing for retrieval. Then, to optimize tie-aware ranking metrics, we derive their continuous relaxations, and perform gradient-based optimization with deep neural networks. Our results establish the new state-of-the-art for image retrieval by Hamming ranking in common benchmarks.Comment: 15 pages, 3 figures. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 201

Statistical Significance Testing in Information Retrieval: An Empirical Analysis of Type I, Type II and Type III Errors

Statistical significance testing is widely accepted as a means to assess how well a difference in effectiveness reflects an actual difference between systems, as opposed to random noise because of the selection of topics. According to recent surveys on SIGIR, CIKM, ECIR and TOIS papers, the t-test is the most popular choice among IR researchers. However, previous work has suggested computer intensive tests like the bootstrap or the permutation test, based mainly on theoretical arguments. On empirical grounds, others have suggested non-parametric alternatives such as the Wilcoxon test. Indeed, the question of which tests we should use has accompanied IR and related fields for decades now. Previous theoretical studies on this matter were limited in that we know that test assumptions are not met in IR experiments, and empirical studies were limited in that we do not have the necessary control over the null hypotheses to compute actual Type I and Type II error rates under realistic conditions. Therefore, not only is it unclear which test to use, but also how much trust we should put in them. In contrast to past studies, in this paper we employ a recent simulation methodology from TREC data to go around these limitations. Our study comprises over 500 million p-values computed for a range of tests, systems, effectiveness measures, topic set sizes and effect sizes, and for both the 2-tail and 1-tail cases. Having such a large supply of IR evaluation data with full knowledge of the null hypotheses, we are finally in a position to evaluate how well statistical significance tests really behave with IR data, and make sound recommendations for practitioners.Comment: 10 pages, 6 figures, SIGIR 201